Law 30a
Hypothetical problem. I was called to a pass out of rotation at RHO's turn to call. Should be simple enough, except that the offending pair play a forcing pass in second seat after certain conventional openings. Fortunately it was not an issue this time around, but I was left wondering how to deal with it as 30C only applies when the pass out of rotation itself is artifical.
Comments
Could you be more specific, please, maybe with some examples?
I'll pass on this one!
I hope this would come under law 84D
D. Director’s Option
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non‐offending side. He seeks to restore
equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non‐offending side has been damaged by an
irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).
So if I can get away with it, I would allow the offender to make any legal call and be prepared to adjust the score if they gain an advantage from doing so. The alternative would be to force the pass onto the OS and make their partner treat it as forcing (which seems inequitable since they have been deprived of the chance of making their non-forcing bid/ double)
I think an example would be a pass of a precision club indicating a take-out into the majors. Partner must either bid his better major or 1 !d to show no preferance. However the person passes before the precision club bid is made. Now the laws (30A) say that he must pass when next his turn to call. (showing the majors), when it is pretty obvious that the intention is to convey weakness only. The laws do not allow him to make a comparable call since law 31 doesn;t apply (because the original pass was natural).
Another possible example: some pairs have a system against pre-emptive opening bids with a very weak range, for which X is penalty, Pass is takeout, and there are no weak bids (if you have a weak hand you either bid a long suit, or with no long suit, pass and then pass partner's response).
If you pass out of turn with RHO as dealer, and then RHO bids (say) 3!c with a range of 0-4, you now have no bid that even approximates your opening pass. If you're forced to pass and partner knows you're forced to pass, this is giving information that a pass wouldn't (as a pass in that situation could be very strong).
I suggest that Law 30C does not apply but should, and that Law 31 is more applicable to this situation than Law 30A.
Law 30C (2027)?
I have no objections to that - it is what I would like to apply at the moment.
Unfortunately you can't. The laws provide no respite where the application of the law is ludicrous. 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.
Sorry if this all too hypothetical: angels on pin-heads).
But there is a problem in applying Law 30A as written in this position. The Law does not tell offender's partner what to do - is the first Pass (out of rotation) unauthorised information (is a cancelled call that is repeated later "wihdrawn"). The rest of Laws 30/31/32 always states that Law 16C applies if it does. Offender's partner is allowed to know that offender's pass is required by an application of law. It is very difficult to tell offender's partner that he must treat the Pass in rotation as artificial because he is not allowed to know that offender earlier passed out of rotation.
What do we make of "Law 72C may apply" in Law 30A?
To me that suggests that offender's partner should treat the Pass as weakness-showing; and if the ability to make a weakness-showing Pass on the actual auction (where Pass would be artificial) damages the non-offending side, then the TD should adjust under Law 72C.
For example, if second-in-hand has a balanced 0-count, he could be worried that this is not a good hand for his forcing-pass defence to a strong 1C and passes out of turn. This may be a situation where 'could have been aware' in Law 72C might apply.
I think I have persuaded myself that the answer to the original question is that (in the absence of "Law 16C applies"), offender's partner can treat the Pass required by Law 30A as showing weakness; if the offender has damaged the opponents by avoiding having to make an artificial Pass or other call, then "Law 72C may apply".
I think it was said at Antalya, though I hope others who were there may be able to confirm it, that any mandatory pass or bid after a COOR should be considered to be comparable and therefore subject only to L23C if their opponents appear to have been damaged by it.
Thank you Robin_BarkerTD, a very helpful post on how Law 72C can be used in this situation.
So, I suppose if their partner didn't bid based on the knowledge there are no opening values opposite, that might be cause to adjust.
Although if, as Gordon suggests, the forced pass is considered comparable by decree, I guess that's ruled out too.
I am sure there have been recent conversations on this forum where it was affirmed that:
1) A withdrawn call, even if repeated, is still withdrawn (and hence UI)
2) The fact that a law is not referred to by another law does not mean that it does not apply. The only cases where we have any such effect is where the laws specifically state that another law does not apply (e.g. 25A1)
I think Robin has identified the crux of the matter. Law 16A1c: information "arising from the legal
procedures authorized in these laws" is AI, and AI trumps UI.
Offender must still pass (that's the law) but partner does not have to treat it as its usual meaning because he is allowed to know that the pass is forced, and that it is forced under Law 30A.